One of the most wide-spread arguments sound like: “alcohol and tobacco are presented in our life, that’s why they are in cinematograph as well”. Nobody argues with that: everything, that there is in real life, one way or another will reflect in movies and TV series. It is only a question of scale: one may make a passing mention in one of many films, and one may also stage alcohol-tobacco parades. Now the situation is the following:
- 90% of movies has shots with cigarettes and alcohol
- In average time-study demonstrations of these drugs take from 2 to 5 minutes for an hour and a half movie
- Separate episodes – 5-10 for an hour and a half film
- There are more positive statements about alcohol, than negative
- It can be seen, how alcohol is being tweaked in the shot, carefully integrated in the plot, as much as possible
- Often there are close-ups, smoking lasting for a considerable time, not infrequently pouring alcohol in is the only meaningful elements of visual imagery
- Alcohol never is being called a “poison” or a “drug”, there are no characters- abstainers in movies
Natural mention or artificial promotion
There is a natural mention of a good, which happens naturally, and there is a special promotion – where something is added to a film with the purpose of popularization. For example, technique Sony Ericsson can get exposed in shot – ones and by natural reasons, but when it appears several times in one movie, it is already strange. For instance, in “Casino Royale” motion picture an inscription “Sony Ericsson” appeared minimum 3 times, is it not a subliminal advertising??! At that such a “nip slip” of brands costs lots of money, since it works for a positive image of a trademark and recognition, as a result, sales increase. The brand “Sony Ericsson” absolutely exists in real life, but we however understand, that it has appeared in the film not for that reason.
An analogical situation is with alcohol-tobacco scenes: in case of natural mention there would have been 10-30 times less of them, i.e. maximum 1 film out of 10. There is no evidence to think, that subliminal advertising is being done for popularization of exact goods and brands, and it is not being done for popularization of actual alcohol and smoking, that nobody is going to make propaganda, even interested in it forces.
There is a concept of a subliminal advertising, it is being paid lots of money – a stage manager can earn more from it, than from cinema tickets’ sale and DVD. The core of such advertising is to create an impression that the presence of a good in a film responds to its popularity and necessity in life, but not because it is being specially pushed in shot, for the sake of commercial. Everything’s as with alcohol propaganda! A majority of people don’t see the subliminal advertising; perceive it as an essential mention of a good or a service, that’s why it is so effective. For example, Apple technique appears very often, one may do entire selection of TV series and movies, in which filmed this “apple actor”.
Effectiveness of propaganda on an example of Fascist Germany
It is not enough to prove opponents, that propaganda exists, one also needs to help them realize, that it touches not 5% (or simply an insignificant part of people), but 95%. A typical person does not realize an influence of propaganda either on him/herself, nor on others, that’s why he/she disagrees, that the majority of people are being managed by it. As a result, a person does not place due emphasis to the effect of mass-media.
There are political, ideological and other propaganda, at that it is quite effective, for example, because of the propaganda ordinary German men decided not to work at a factory, but to enter the Army and, firstly, to attack Europe, then USSR. Not by accident, everyone still remembers the head of propaganda department NSDAP Goebbels.
Well, nobody is going to say, that fascist’s propaganda has been, because in real life exist things they have been talking about. Everywhere there is a grain of truth, but in the given case this is the most common propaganda with a lie and exact purposes, at that, please, pay attention, under its influence got the whole country, and later the allied Europe. And 95% of people have not got the hang of it; everybody simultaneously “fell for”. This had been a scaled project, which somebody made and managed, there are no out-of-control processes. And the result of the project – 54 million of people dead during the WWII, as planned, indeed, nobody starts a war not thinking, that there won’t be any losses.
Is it possible to persuade people to take up arms and go killing, and to persuade to take a glass with an alcohol poison and kill themselves – not? Isn’t it funny? Is it possible to persuade people to take up arms and go killing, and to persuade to take a glass with an alcohol poison and kill themselves – not? Isn’t it funny? In fascist Germany, when 5% of citizens, who realized propaganda, have been trying to explain the rest 95%, who have “gone for” it, they also were told, that everything that is being translated in mass-media – is reality and “the truth of life” in essence, but not “bogus stories”, that there is not smoke without fire, and other arguments of those not realizing the influence of propaganda.
How the propaganda has been realized in Germany? Unlikely there were special broadcastings on a radio called “Fascism propaganda” or newspapers columns “Indoctrination and manipulation”. All these have been integrated in allegedly natural informational background of mass-media; here is a program about Eurasia’s nature, and you are going to be mentioned something bad about USSR. I.e. there is one subject, and occasionally you are being “foisted” another, according to subliminal advertising technology a mention is being integrated under the veil of natural.
Same with alcohol propaganda, we are being peddled, that several alcohol-tobacco scenes for an hour and a half film are the same as in real life. But here one needs to know, that there are scaled forces, alike those, which “milked” Germany on WWII. For example, same transnational corporations like Philip Morris – are they interested in product marked advancement, how do you think? And now imagine, they captured almost the whole market of smokers and produce almost all bought cigarettes. There is only one way to develop towards the side of non-smokers agitation – to make them start smoking. But it is also needed the percent of smokers to be maintained, i.e. a human born without nicotine addiction should get it in the end, otherwise an income would decrease. Who is going to tell, that tobacco giants not to do a hand’s turn and hope, that the younger generation will being smoking by itself? And if not – it is going to be end of the ball game to the business.
From Russian Wikipedia: At times the level of processing [propaganda] of target groups had been very high. For example, from the accounts of eyewitnesses, a large part of Germany’s population as recently as in the beginning of the spring of 1945 was sure of the coming victory, whereas the outcome of the war has been destined sure enough.
And now a significant part of the population is sure, that alcohol is not a drug, but a life norm; a part is sure, that this is a nutrition product. But, indeed, in Germany have been scientists, political analysts, conscientious mass-media, honest politicians, could it be true, they did not understand anything and could not explain everything to little people? And people, indeed, weren’t clinical idiots, how had it become possible to fool them? But it had become – it is a fact. And now a significant part of the world is being fooled with an attitude towards alcohol and tobacco.
Trained propagandists, PR-experts and even stylists worked on Fascists Germany. German’s uniform has been developed by now popular company-producer of fashion clothing Hugo Boss. Overall beautiful gesture has been picked and discredited, when a hand is being thrown up at a 45 degrees angel with an open palm. This and much more had been done in order to create an impression, that Nazi – are cool. And now some think that to drink and to smoke – is cool, and even post pics with cigarettes in social networks.
If there is no smoking in films, people will quit smoking bit by bit. Indeed, humanity managed to overcome many events, which destroyed it; for example, there have been the plague and other pandemics earlier, but now the humanity knows, how to make things that way, that nobody is sick. But for some reasons things are different with alcohol and tobacco, even alcohol does only harm to a drinking society. It does not happen, because alcohol and tobacco are produced by people, and they are financially interested (and there are also interests above financial) in these drugs distribution.
If alcohol and tobacco are in films, because they presented in real life, then:
- Why alcohol is never called a drug in films, if this is a popular point of view?
- Why alcohol is never called a poison? It kills not only bacteria, but people as well.
- Why cool characters, who drink tons of alcohol, show physically supernatural abilities, if it is not so in real life?
- Why there aren’t non-drinkers in films, if they exist in real life?
- Why there are more scenes in movies, where a non-drinker begins to drink, then scenes, where a drinker gives up drinking? I can’t remember any scene, where somebody gave up drinking, but know several, where one has begun.
- Why there are many times more positive statements about alcohol and tobacco, then negative ones?
- Why there are massively more scenes with “a high” from alcohol, then scenes with a hangover?
Mass-media form the reality, but not reflect it
History knows several cases, when mass-media reports about something happening provoked this happenings repetition. For example, someone got into the habit of burning cars for illegal parking, this has been told in mass-media, as a result the number of burnings increased, since people have been floated an idea. This situation was managed to stop only after mass-media became forbidden to tell about new cases.
Similar situation is with acts of terrorism – if one does not tell about them in mass-media, their meaning gets lost. A terror is being translated from the Latin as “fear”. The meaning of acts of terrorism is to threaten people, but this is not possible, if nobody is not going to learn about them; the goal of an act of terror itself won’t be reached. Acts of terror happen is real life, is it necessary then to talk about them in mass-media? On the contrary, one may stop them, if only not telling about them. Please, pay attention that acts of terror are made by terrorists, they threaten only those, who has seen or heard about an act of terror, and this is not a big number of people. But mass-media already threaten by their messages dozens and hundreds of people, so who terrorizes us more? Only Special Forces should know about acts of terror, but not a target audience.
The situation is similar with drugs, indeed, if one stops showing them in each episode, people will think of them one order less. For example, I’m a non-drinker and a non-smoker, see 95% alcohol-tobacco scenes in movies, but not in real life. I.e. if not cinematograph, I would have seen 20 times less smoking and drinking alcohol. And I’m not even mentioning, how exactly these scenes are shown, if you think they are shown as in real life, it is not so – they are sugared.
Werther effect - emulation of another suicide that the person attempting suicide knows about either from local knowledge or due to accounts or depictions of the original suicide on television and in other media. The number of suicides increase significantly after 0-7 days after such a story in mass-media. There is a similarity between the situation of the first, became known self-destroyer, and situations of those, who committed suicide after him/her (if there had been an aged suicide – the number of suicides among aged people increased; if a suicide belonged to a certain social sphere or profession – the number of suicides in these spheres increased).
Werther effect is named after a publication of Goethe’s novel, where the main hero called Werther committed suicide from the unanswered love, which provoked a wave of suicides. And also there had been observed a similar wave of deaths by drowning among young girls in Russia after the publication in 1792 of the book of Karamzin N. “Poor Liza”.
It is a scientific fact, that an example of a suicide can push people to this act. And it is not that hard to guess, that example of constant smoking and drinking alcohol among characters of films also push a viewer to such destructive behavior, only in movies it is being promoted not as destructive, but as a norm. If not all readers committed suicide after the mentioned books, one should not think, that this works only for a small percentage, for two reasons:
- To commit suicide a person needs to step outside of the main instinct – an instinct for self-preservation. And in order to follow stars’ example of drinking and smoking – one does not need anything, all the more, all films persuade, that this is not dangerous.
- Books and films, where main heroes (with whom an audience associates itself the most) commit suicide, contain very small percent, and pieces of screen, where characters drink and smoke – 90%. If in 9 out of 10 films heroes committed suicide, there would have been a lot more suicides. Even though alcohol and cigarettes are a slow suicide.
We may think of how maniac’s imitators appeared, when there have been a message in mass-media about a manic, who killed his victims in a certain way, there appeared people, who repeated his handwriting.
In these cases work not exactly the same mechanisms, as in alcohol-tobacco scenes in films, but similar. Mass-media show this allegedly because it exists in real life, but only increase the frequency of cases. But any mass-media – is business, i.e. the goal of a project – is money. Mass-media tell about something not because it exists in real life, but because this allows earning money. None of big mass-media does not put as a goal to objectively reflect the reality, it can only declare this as a goal, only for show, but management tells its journalists on briefings, that their task – to make ratings, and that earning lays not in objectiveness. It is important – to create an illusion of objectiveness among an audience, but do not mess up the creation of an illusion with the real goal setting to show objectively.
Same in movies – a viewer should think, that all shown – is natural or occasional, and not made with the goal to subconsciously affect his/her point of view. There are many empty slots in movies, where one many lay something, for example, characters use phones, one may use nameless phones, and there will be no money then, but one may agree with Sony Ericsson or Apple, to make these phone exactly these trademarks, and then one gets money for subliminal advertising. A nonconscious advertising – is a hidden affecting of a viewer’s mind, and there are many slots of such influence. Here’s another example of a slot: characters may talk about something in park on the street, and one may make them “accidentally” choose MacDonald’s or KFC for a conversation – a logo of the restaurant is enclosed in the shot. A viewer does not understand that this is a commercial on a screen anyway. And one can also make a smoking character, which should necessarily be shown; indeed a film’s editor happiness would not be complete without it.
Another slot may become a car of a main hero, one may just show an accidental brand, but one can also get money for a commercial; just mentioning the brand is enough. But if we talk about subliminal advertising, then why don’t we not only show the car, but also make separate scenes, showing how good it is? The adverting is going to be more effective – the more money to earn. This is how goofs as in “A Good Day To Die Hard” (2013) appear, where jeep Mercedes just about drives the walls, such a good practicability.
And there are a lot of such slots, where one can put profitable meanings to someone, and not only in brands’ promotion sphere. The main principle is that you do not realize, which stereotype a film forms in you, and do not pay attention on the fact, that there aren’t any children in a family shown, or just one. And meanwhile, if one watches such things from the early childhood, a stereotype, that 1-2 children is the norm, is being formed. But if there are going to be 5-7 children in a family in movies shown, the majority will be sure, that for a sound life one needs this number of kids. The main deceit of mass-media is in that a typical person does not even realize, how many of these slots are, and what exactly they suggest.
Why there aren’t non-drinkers in movies?
Do you know why propagandists avoid like the plague showing non-drinkers or giving up alcohol in movies? They even laugh at them and show as fools very rarely, I know only one case, when non-drinkers have been shown in a film, and then only for laughing at, and I noticed it not quite naturally, but from a review of What is Good. Instead I can name dozens (if not hundreds) of films, where there aren’t any non-drinkers, and drinking characters are shown. To be more accurate, there still were non-drinkers in movies, but only when they have started to drink alcohol little-by-little. I.e. the propaganda of moving from non-drinking to civilized-drinking.
Propagandists fear the very idea of sobriety the most, indeed even if one laughs at non-drinkers, a viewer is going to notice that among “drinking much” (alcoholic) and “drinking relatively little” (civilized drinker) also exists a non-drinker. They consider, people should not even come up with a thought, that they can exist without alcohol, or else they are going to repeat! Of course, we know about such occurrence, but if constantly show, talk and write in books about how cool it is to drink, and conceal the idea of sobriety, it is being gotten out of mind, a person as if forgets about it, concentrating on what he/she sees often – and these are alcohol-tobacco scenes.
If mass-media starts to tell about people quit smoking and drinking, the number of people, who quit is going to increase, that’s why mass-media does not talk about it.
Are you going to tell your child something bad about his/her forefathers? If a child asks you to tell something about his/her grandma or granddad, you are going to say something good, to make your child take on a positive example. There are unworthy acts in any person’s life, but you are unlikely going to tell that you grandfather smoked in any story about him. But you will necessarily be shown smokers in films, as if this somehow affects the plot. You are not going to tell your child: “So your granddad, lighting a cigarette, sat in the car, and started driving…” it does not matter at all, had he lighted up a cigarette or not, that’s why you are not going to talk about it, to make your child not to repeat his example, right? Even though it had been in real life, you realize which impact stories have (same with fairy tales) on upbringing, apparently mass-media “does not understand” this…
People have many flaws in real life, not only smoking and alcohol, but these flaws for some reasons are presented far from each movie. Why alcohol scenes are consistently being showed, independently from the plot, and another flaw, for example, hand job – only when it is necessary for the plot? According to statistics, about 70% of people do that in life, meaning such scenes should be in each 5-10 movie, but are presented rarer. The answer is – if one popularizes hand job, he/she is not going to earn much from it, but if smoking is going to be popularized, there are quite exact money for it. But the case is not only in money for the Phillip Morris, it is also important to decrease the population, weaken passionarity, geopolitical competitors are also being weakened through poisons.
More than half a century ago a war was on the front burner, and now wars are not only cold, but informational as well. When Americans entered Afghanistan, the production of drugs there has increased 40 times, and they have been exported not in the USA. It is understandable, that this has not been occasional or natural, but intentional. May be it is also intentionally in movies, which mainly are being managed by the American dream factory Hollywood? People guessed to purposefully build a whole city more than 100 years ago for movie needs, but I don’t believe they have not guessed to integrate there the needed propaganda.
Even though now it is not only hand job being shown in movies, there are many perversions presented there, and this is being done for a reason of population decreasing, people are being tired to make sexless, who as a result will become perfect zombie and slaves, since won’t have any human values and strives, apart from mass-media imposed. Gay-propaganda has increased much in movies and even in computer games like Far Cry 4 and Prey 2017. And this is not only presence of gay characters, but namely using tricks of manipulation of mind and imposing a viewer. This cannot be justified by tolerance, as in the case with necessary presence of African-Americans in films; here is the work with hidden methods of a viewer’s mind.
If you learn how much natural (“because it exists in real life”) and occasional is presented in movies, you will be surprised, I advise you to read materials, how movies are being filmed – everything is being done according to a neat technology. Mass-media successfully manipulates people because of their firmness that mass-media manipulations work only for clinical idiots. People are sure in this, because they do not study this subject. People do not know, how things, they get 95% of information from are arranged, and I’m not only talking about realized information, but also about mass-media influence on a subconscious.
Translated by Daria Egorova